Self Defense: Difference between revisions

From Halachipedia
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:


== Lo Tamod- You Shall Not Stand on Blood ==
== Lo Tamod- You Shall Not Stand on Blood ==
The Torah prohibits a person from not assisting someone in mortal danger. The Talmud also explains that there exists a mitzvah to save someone from death as a fulfillment of returning a lost item
The Torah prohibits a person from not assisting someone in mortal danger.<ref>Vayikra 19.16</ref> The Talmud also explains that there exists a mitzvah to save someone from death as a fulfillment of returning a lost item.<ref>Sanhedrin 53a</ref>


The Talmud says that in a case where someone sees another person in need- you must try all you can to save the person, including the rescuer spending his own money.
The Talmud says that in a case where someone sees another person in need- you must try all you can to save the person, including the rescuer spending his own money.<ref>Sanhedrin 53a</ref>


The commentators explain that while the rescuer is liable to spend his own money in the moment, but that the rescued must later compensate the rescuer for expenses.
The commentators explain that while the rescuer is liable to spend his own money in the moment, but that the rescued must later compensate the rescuer for expenses.<ref>Rosh Sanhedrin 8.2</ref>


== Property in a Rodef Case ==
== Property in a Rodef Case ==
Line 34: Line 34:


== Self Defense with Someone Else's Property ==
== Self Defense with Someone Else's Property ==
Can you save yourself with someone else's property? The Talmud records that King David raised this exact question in his war with the Philistines. The Philistines were hiding in Jewish-owned barley fields- and King David wanted to light a fire in order to drive the Philistines out. King David asked the Sages whether he was permitted to burn the field- and they exclaimed that for a private individual it is forbidden to save himself with another person's property.  
Can you save yourself with someone else's property? The Talmud records that King David raised this exact question in his war with the Philistines. The Philistines were hiding in Jewish-owned barley fields- and King David wanted to light a fire in order to drive the Philistines out. King David asked the Sages whether he was permitted to burn the field- and they exclaimed that for a private individual it is forbidden to save himself with another person's property.<ref>Bava Kamma 60b</ref>
 
# The commentators disagree over the extent of this ruling. The Talmud clearly says pekuach nefesh overrides all mitzvot in the Torah with the exception of sexual immorality, Avodah Zara, and murder. Given that, one should be able to perform theft for the purpose of saving their life. Does this ruling imply one cannot save oneself, or that
There is an exception to the prohibition of saving oneself with the property of another person. A person is permitted to self themself by destroying property that is a rodef to him- or belongs to a rodef.


# The commentators disagree over the extent of this ruling. The Talmud clearly says pekuach nefesh overrides all mitzvot in the Torah with the exception of sexual immorality, Avodah Zara, and murder. Given that, one should be able to perform theft for the purpose of saving their life. Does this ruling imply one must die rather than violate theft?
# Most say that one is permitted to steal in order to save your life- but King David 's question was only about if the theft was exempt from damages.<ref>Tosafot Bava Kamma 60b</ref>
# There are some that say that the statement should be taken at face value- theft is prohibited even to save a life.<ref>Rashi Bava Kamma 60b. There are many different approaches to read Rashi's opinion- as noted by Rav Asher Weiss in his piece on this sugya- Minchat Asher Vayikra Siman 66.</ref>
# A person is permitted to save themselves by destroying property that is a rodef to him- or belongs to a rodef. He is exempt from paying liability for this destruction.<ref>Shulchan Aruch CM 380.3</ref>
# Some say that property is only a rodef if the owner of the property is to blame for the item being dangerous.<ref>Rama CM 380.4</ref>
## For example- a donkey is riding aboard a boat with its owner and other passengers. The donkey suffers a panic attack and begins jumping up and down and causes the boat to begin to sink. The passengers are permitted to throw the donkey off the ship to save their lives. The passengers are exempt for paying damages for the donkey.<ref>Bava Kama 116b</ref>
## Some say that this is only true if the donkey owner was negligent in bringing the donkey aboard the boat and the donkey was known to be dangerous. If the incident is a freak accident, the passengers who threw the donkey must pay damages.<ref>Tshuvot Maimoniyot Sefer Nizakin 20</ref>
### Some say that this in turn is only true if there are other luggage on the boat and thus the instability is not only the donkey's fault, but partially due to the weight of other people's luggage. If the donkey is the sole cause of the danger, there is no requirement of owner negligence.<ref>Shut Gur Aryeh CM 32</ref>
### Others say that this principle is always true- the donkey is not considered a Rodef unless the owner is negligent.<ref>Erech Shai CM 264.2</ref>
#For more details about the practice of jettisoning on boats- see [[Maritime Law in Halacha]]
== Sources ==
== Sources ==
<references/>
<references/>

Latest revision as of 14:37, 23 August 2024

The Torah permits a person to neutralize an attacker if his life is threatened. This concept is known in halacha as Rodef (heb. רודף; lit. a chaser). When necessary it is even permissible to kill a rodef in order to save the intended victim.

Saving the life of a victim

  1. When an attacker is chasing his victim in order to kill him, it is permissible and a mitzvah to save the victim from death, even if that necessitates killing the attacker.[1]
  2. However, two criteria that need to be met in order to kill a rodef are:
    1. The rodef is warned that the victim he is chasing is Jewish and if he tries to kill him, he is culpable of death.[2] Some poskim hold that this warning is only necessary when there is time and it is possible, but when impossible it isn't necessary.[3]
    2. If it is at all possible the savior should try to neutralize the rodef without killing the rodef. If incapacitating him by injuring one of his limbs or in another manner is possible those means must be resorted to before killing the rodef. If the savior kills the rodef without trying to neutralize the rodef without killing him, he is culpable for his murder.[4]
      1. Some poskim make a distinction between the intended victim and someone else coming to save the intended victim. The intended victim may kill the rodef without first trying to neutralize the rodef by incapacitating him in another fashion. However, someone else coming to save the intended victim must first try to neutralize the rodef before resorting to kill him.[5] However, most poskim reject this distinction and require even the intended victim to try to neutralize the rodef without killing him if at all possible.[6]

Minor Rodef

  1. It is possible to kill a rodef even if he's a minor.[7]

Lo Tamod- You Shall Not Stand on Blood

The Torah prohibits a person from not assisting someone in mortal danger.[8] The Talmud also explains that there exists a mitzvah to save someone from death as a fulfillment of returning a lost item.[9]

The Talmud says that in a case where someone sees another person in need- you must try all you can to save the person, including the rescuer spending his own money.[10]

The commentators explain that while the rescuer is liable to spend his own money in the moment, but that the rescued must later compensate the rescuer for expenses.[11]

Property in a Rodef Case

The Talmud says that if someone is being chased by a rodef and in order to escape, the victim damages property of a third party- the victim must later compensate the owners of the broken property for damages. If the victim damages the rodef's property, the victim is exempt.

If a rescuer chases after the rodef in order to save the victim and damages property over the course of the chase- the rescuer is exempt from the cost of damages even if the rescuer damaged property of a third party

  1. The Talmud explains that the rescuer is exempt from damages out a concern lest people refrain from saving out of a liability concern
    1. In contrast, no such concern exists if the victim damages property in his flight, since he has the natural incentive of self preservation
  2. There is a dispute about when this exemption applies. The case in controversy is where the rescuer is also a potential victim, and by defeating the rodef, the rescuer also saves the victim.
    1. Some say that the exemption does not apply- in this case we are not concerned that the rescuer would not rescue- since his life was at risk.[12]
    2. Others say that the exemption from liability applies anytime you save other people.[13]

Self Defense with Someone Else's Property

Can you save yourself with someone else's property? The Talmud records that King David raised this exact question in his war with the Philistines. The Philistines were hiding in Jewish-owned barley fields- and King David wanted to light a fire in order to drive the Philistines out. King David asked the Sages whether he was permitted to burn the field- and they exclaimed that for a private individual it is forbidden to save himself with another person's property.[14]

  1. The commentators disagree over the extent of this ruling. The Talmud clearly says pekuach nefesh overrides all mitzvot in the Torah with the exception of sexual immorality, Avodah Zara, and murder. Given that, one should be able to perform theft for the purpose of saving their life. Does this ruling imply one must die rather than violate theft?
  2. Most say that one is permitted to steal in order to save your life- but King David 's question was only about if the theft was exempt from damages.[15]
  3. There are some that say that the statement should be taken at face value- theft is prohibited even to save a life.[16]
  4. A person is permitted to save themselves by destroying property that is a rodef to him- or belongs to a rodef. He is exempt from paying liability for this destruction.[17]
  5. Some say that property is only a rodef if the owner of the property is to blame for the item being dangerous.[18]
    1. For example- a donkey is riding aboard a boat with its owner and other passengers. The donkey suffers a panic attack and begins jumping up and down and causes the boat to begin to sink. The passengers are permitted to throw the donkey off the ship to save their lives. The passengers are exempt for paying damages for the donkey.[19]
    2. Some say that this is only true if the donkey owner was negligent in bringing the donkey aboard the boat and the donkey was known to be dangerous. If the incident is a freak accident, the passengers who threw the donkey must pay damages.[20]
      1. Some say that this in turn is only true if there are other luggage on the boat and thus the instability is not only the donkey's fault, but partially due to the weight of other people's luggage. If the donkey is the sole cause of the danger, there is no requirement of owner negligence.[21]
      2. Others say that this principle is always true- the donkey is not considered a Rodef unless the owner is negligent.[22]
  6. For more details about the practice of jettisoning on boats- see Maritime Law in Halacha

Sources

  1. ↑ Sanhedrin 73a, Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:6), Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1
  2. ↑ Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:7), Tur and Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1
  3. ↑ Sma 425:3 writes that the entire warning is only necessary initially, but after the fact it isn't necessary. Bach 425:4 s.v. ma shkatuv keysad implies that the formal hatrah warning necessary for bet din punishments isn't necessary except initially for Rambam. However, informing the rodef that the victim is Jewish and he will be culpable for killing him is necessary, seemingly even after the fact. See RJJ article by Rabbi Bechofer (p. 11 fnt. 38) where he quotes R' Ari Federgrun, who questioned Sma's proof.
  4. ↑ Sanhedrin 57a-b, Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:13), Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1, Aruch Hashulchan 425:6
  5. ↑ Hagahot Mishna Lmelech (Chovel Umazik 8:10) quoting one answer in Rivash 238
  6. ↑ Rabbi Bechhofer in RJJ article (p. 4 fnt. 18) presents that Brisker Rav (Griz on Rambam Chovel 8:10), Rav Kook (Mishpat Kohen 139), Rashi (Sanhedrin 57a s.v. vyachol), Yad Ramah (Sanhedrin 57a), and Rosh (Bava Kama 3:13) do not hold of any distinction between the nitzal and matzil. Rabbi Bechhofer presents an argument that Rambam does hold like this distinction.
  7. ↑ Sanhedrin 72b, Rambam (Rotze'ach 1:6), Shulchan Aruch C.M. 425:1
  8. ↑ Vayikra 19.16
  9. ↑ Sanhedrin 53a
  10. ↑ Sanhedrin 53a
  11. ↑ Rosh Sanhedrin 8.2
  12. ↑ Pnei Yehoshua Bava Kama 60b
  13. ↑ Netivot Hamispat Biurim 340.6 The Netivot is commenting on the Terumat Hadeshen's case of someone who borrows weapons before fighting in a battle to save the town. The Terumat Hadeshen exempts the borrower for loss of property is the battle is lost and the weapons stolen because of meta Machmat melacha. The Netivot argues that the Terumat Hadeshen must be describing a case where the battle was not life or death, because if it were, there would be no doubt about exempting the borrower from liability.
  14. ↑ Bava Kamma 60b
  15. ↑ Tosafot Bava Kamma 60b
  16. ↑ Rashi Bava Kamma 60b. There are many different approaches to read Rashi's opinion- as noted by Rav Asher Weiss in his piece on this sugya- Minchat Asher Vayikra Siman 66.
  17. ↑ Shulchan Aruch CM 380.3
  18. ↑ Rama CM 380.4
  19. ↑ Bava Kama 116b
  20. ↑ Tshuvot Maimoniyot Sefer Nizakin 20
  21. ↑ Shut Gur Aryeh CM 32
  22. ↑ Erech Shai CM 264.2
Retrieved from "http://localhost:80/index.php?title=Self_Defense&oldid=33635"